You are here

Home»The Model»Issues»Issue Processing»Check if there is a need for a generalized class to identify usage

Search form

Search

Issue 147:
Check if there is a need for a generalized class to identify usage

Starting Date:

2007-03-14

Working Group:

1

Status:

Done

Closing Date:

2008-05-12

Background:

Talking about scope of usage and date of usage of a name, we observed that these attributes indicate the context in which a name is used - who uses this identifier and what for? We conclude that the scope of usage and the date of usage do not pertain to the names themselves but to activities dealing with the names. The question to CRM is "do we need a generalized class to identify usage?"

Paris 14/3/2007

We came back to the scope of usage and date of usage of a name (motivated by the mapping of FRAD, attributes of name: dates of usage, scope of usage ) and our previous remark that these pertain to the activities dealing with the names and not the names themselves. Under this view we discuss if we need a generalized class in CRM to identify usage? We observed that there is nothing in CRM that makes it clear that a name is connected with a given time span, clear. We made the following schema:

Edinburg 10/7/2007

Old Proposal:

We need a name use activity.

Edinburgh 10/7/2007

Current Proposal:

We clarified that the reason why we move Appellation to Thing was for making use of P16 used specific object (was used for). Since Appellation is regarded as a thing there is no need for this specific class. We decided the following actions:

To add an example to E7 Activity about the use of a name (MD will do it)

To write a FAQ about the use of a name (MD will do it)

Since there is a difference between something being present and something being used, we decided that we should add something about the name use in the scope note of P16 (MD will do it).

This property describes the use of material or immaterial things in a way essential to the performance or the outcome of an E7 Activity.

This property typically applies to tools, instruments, moulds, raw materials and items embedded in a product. It implies that the presence of the object in question was a necessary condition for the action. For example, the activity of writing this text required the use of a computer. An immaterial thing can be used if at least one of its carriers is present. For example, the software tools on a computer.

Another example is the use of a particular name by a particular group of people over some span to identify a thing, such as a settlement. In this case, the physical carriers of this name are at least the people understanding its use.